Deficit Estimate To $9 Trillion

[Tams 20]

WOW !!!

 

 

http://247wallst.com/2009/08/22/white-house-deficit-estimate-to-9-trillion-from-7-1-trillion/

 

 

White House Deficit Estimate To $9 Trillion From $7.1 Trillion

 

The Administration quickly and fairly quietly raised its budget deficit forecast for the next ten years to $9 trillion from $7.1 trillion, an astonishing 27% increase.

 

The new estimate is much closer to the number that the Congressional Budget Office posted earlier this year.

 

One of the reasons for the change is that tax receipts are running below estimates due to the recession. The Administration believed unemployment would peak at 8%.

 

The shortfall in government revenue could continue for another year or more. The White House budget forecast robust GDP recovery in 2010 and 2011. Many economists expect the improvement will be closer to 2%. Unemployment will almost certainly remain above 9% next year and perhaps even into early 2011.

 

Tax receipts from businesses are also below forecast. A number of factors, especially weak consumer spending, have hurt many American companies worse than expected.

 

The alternatives for fixing the deficit problem are all bad. One is to raise taxes. A much higher burden on individuals would almost certainly wound a recovery in consumer spending. Higher taxes on enterprises will make it more likely they will cut more workers. It becomes a vicious cycle which ultimately adds to unemployment.

 

Another option is for the treasury to sell more debt. The New York Times recently reported that China’s appetite for US debt is falling. The paper writes “Figures released by the Treasury Department this week indicated that China reduced its holdings of Treasury securities by $25 billion in June, the most China had ever sold in a month.” That only leaves the Treasury one option, which is to offer higher interest rates on bonds. That will push up most other interest rates including those essential to the recovery, particularly mortgages.

 

The only alternative that will work to help the rising red ink is too cut government spending. The Congress and The White House have not shown much interest in that. But, the time is coming when their hands may be forced. That leaves the only open question as which programs will be slashed and which will be preserved.

 

Douglas A. McIntyre

[forrestang 10]

Too much government, although it's not necessarily a new concept, just exponentially growing now.

 

Beginning w/FDR, just too much damn government!!!

 

[3monkeys 10]

 

Big government has always been the response to big failures in big business or military conflicts. After all, no one expects big business to bail out or fight a war for any one - they are in the profit business after all. In the US, it was a string of Republicans and big business bubble in the 20s that brought about the crash of 1929 and subsequent election of FDR and then big government and regulation. The alternative was even greater suffering of the middle and lower economic class.

[forrestang 10]

  Quote

it was a string of Republicans and big business bubble in the 20s that brought about the crash of 1929

 

I think you've fallen for the whole republican/democrat b.s. unfortunately. With the above statement, nothing anyone says is goign to affect your bias.

 

Sure, there are real distinctions to be made between the two, dont get me wrong.

 

The government doesn't produce a thing. There is only one way to create wealth, and that is taking a natural resource of some kind and producing a product worth selling. "Big buisiness" or whatever you want to call it actually produces something. The government only takes and takes. Worse off there is no competition, so it has no incentive to spend that money wisely.

 

It doesn't have to worry about going out of buisiness or maintaining profitablility. If it mispends or makes a bad decision(as it always does), it knows it can simply tax it's populace a bit more, via the end of a gun barrel if necessary.

 

The 20s is a subject of great debate. Nothing FDR did pulled the country out of the recession any faster. I'm sure you would disagree? It would be my argument that he prolonged the recession. So the discussion is pointless. Every major government program since the days of FDR has been met with nothing but dissapointment and failure. The government can't really do anything right, and FDR was the catalyst that moved this country away from respecting the constitution and the government adhering to the enumerated powers within. Just about EVERY program the government creates fails, new government programs are only mortgaging future generations paychecks.

 

Government is the leech on society. It consists of people who have no real world experience, and they think it's their responsibility to 'save us from ourselves,' cause we're so stupid to manage ourselves.

[throughthemud 10]

  forrestang said:

I think you've fallen for the whole republican/democrat b.s. unfortunately. With the above statement, nothing anyone says is goign to affect your bias.

 

Sure, there are real distinctions to be made between the two, dont get me wrong.

 

The government doesn't produce a thing. There is only one way to create wealth, and that is taking a natural resource of some kind and producing a product worth selling. "Big business" or whatever you want to call it actually produces something. The government only takes and takes. Worse off there is no competition, so it has no incentive to spend that money wisely.

 

It doesn't have to worry about going out of buisiness or maintaining profitablility. If it mispends or makes a bad decision(as it always does), it knows it can simply tax it's populace a bit more, via the end of a gun barrel if necessary.

 

Government is the leech on society. It consists of people who have no real world experience, and they think it's their responsibility to 'save us from ourselves,' cause we're so stupid to manage ourselves.

 

everything you said about government is also applicable to big business

[forrestang 10]

  throughthemud said:

everything you said about government is also applicable to big business

 

I am not wanting to highjack this thread about the deficit, but.....

 

No it's not applicable to big buisiness. You're not seeing the inherent difference. Competition and monopolies! There is no competition with government. It is by nature a monopoly.

 

Also, profit motives. Like I said before, government has no motive to spend money wisely. They have an endless supply of it from us sheeple. And when they don't have enough, they simply take more money from us sheeple at gunpoint via taxes, or print more of it.

 

Big buisiness, no matter how corrupt it gets, it simply cannot run a buisiness the way government runs itself, or it would be OUT of buisiness. And that should be governments role with regards to that. Not to take it over, not to tell them how to conduct buisiness, but as oversight. To make sure big buisiness upholds their bargans they make with the people.

 

Worse off, politicians now run for office like a high school child runs for class presideent. It's not about what you can do, it's about making enough people like you, even if you have no experience what so ever. If you can remove enough people from the payrolls, play the populist game and promise enough handouts, you can own the country as a politician.

[throughthemud 10]

the problem there's not really a lot of competition in business.

 

companies take huge profits even after paying ridiculously huge salaries and bonuses to their execs.

 

what happens when they make mistakes? they charge customers more. produce lower quality products, lay people off or THEY TAKE MONEY FROM THE TAX PAYERS! haven't you seen what's been going on?

 

lots of businesses run off credit just like the government does. GM did it and was losing money for about 8 years straight and would've kept going just the same if the credit crisis never happened

 

i agree with your statement following that though. government should be involved in oversight for the most part.

 

politicians are sleaze bags just as you say but a lot of corporate execs are too.

 

i'm in total agreement with you about government but you have turned 100% blind eye to what corporations are doing.

[forrestang 10]

  throughthemud said:

the problem there's not really a lot of competition in business.

 

companies take huge profits even after paying ridiculously huge salaries and bonuses to their execs.

 

what happens when they make mistakes? they charge customers more. produce lower quality products, lay people off or THEY TAKE MONEY FROM THE TAX PAYERS! haven't you seen what's been going on?

 

lots of businesses run off credit just like the government does. GM did it and was losing money for about 8 years straight and would've kept going just the same if the credit crisis never happened

 

i agree with your statement following that though. government should be involved in oversight for the most part.

 

politicians are sleaze bags just as you say but a lot of corporate execs are too.

 

i'm in total agreement with you about government but you have turned 100% blind eye to what corporations are doing.

 

I'm confused? There is plenty of competition in buisiness. That is the nature of buisiness, consumers are allowed to take their buisiness elsewhere. There are plenty of every kind of buisiness offering services. And here is the best part, your wallet does most of the talking! That is not the same with government, if you think Big Buisiness has no competition, how much competition does the government have? ZERO, they have ZERO competition.

 

What does the executive salary have to do with anything? Do you want to fix the wages that someone can earn? And about that, guess who approved the big salaries for the Execs AFTER the latest bailout, it was the government!

 

You asked what happens when the make mistakes and want to charge people more? You take your buisiness elsewhere. They can't force you to retain their services. That's how capitalism works.

 

You say I'm turning my eye, I'm not saying that. I'm saying you can thank government for this crisis in the first place. Fannie/Freddie, you tell me, what was the government's role in that since it's inception? I guarantee you, whenever government attampts to do more than regulate, and actually insert themselves into buisiness, IT WILL RESULT IN FAILURE. Please, name a government run program or institution that has done something useful in the last 100 years?

 

GM is just all together a different story, that was bad run buisiness, it was an insurance company at the end.

[throughthemud 10]

government has plenty of competition you can just move to a different state or country or vote in a different politician.

 

i'm not saying we should fix salaries except perhaps in government entities or companies that got government money but the government didn't approve those salaries anyway. they said we'll just let private industry handle it because we know they'll do that right thing and they gave billions of dollars in bonuses anyway.

 

you can thank government for this crisis because they stopped regulating and just believed the companies would do the right thing on their own.

 

there are plenty of great government programs and their are plenty of great businesses. i can give you tons of examples of horrible businesses and horrible politicians and government programs. what it all comes down to is there's not one simple answer. the government isn't always evil and doesn't always fail and the same is true for business but we should regulate and hold people accountable. 100% government would be a disaster and 0% government would be a disaster. probably still holds true for 20/80

[forrestang 10]

  throughthemud said:

government has plenty of competition you can just move to a different state or country or vote in a different politician.

 

i'm not saying we should fix salaries except perhaps in government entities or companies that got government money but the government didn't approve those salaries anyway. they said we'll just let private industry handle it because we know they'll do that right thing and they gave billions of dollars in bonuses anyway.

 

you can thank government for this crisis because they stopped regulating and just believed the companies would do the right thing on their own.

 

there are plenty of great government programs and their are plenty of great businesses. i can give you tons of examples of horrible businesses and horrible politicians and government programs. what it all comes down to is there's not one simple answer. the government isn't always evil and doesn't always fail and the same is true for business but we should regulate and hold people accountable. 100% government would be a disaster and 0% government would be a disaster. probably still holds true for 20/80

 

There is nothing you can do to escape the government, and particularly I am talking about the federal government with regards to all of the problems it creates. And while moving out of the state is an option to escape the local government, there really is nothing you can do to escape the federal government. For the purpose of this discussion, the idea of moving out of the country is a bit silly.

 

Escaping most buisiness is as simple as choosing to give your money to somone else in most cases. And it does not require one to uproot his life and family by moving to another state or out of the country.

 

Actually, the government did approve those latest bonuses. Do you remember all the public outrage, and even from the politicians...... only later to find out that the bonuses where part of the bill the government signed, they just failed to read it obviously..... either that or someone got paid to leave the bonuses in there.

 

Thanking government for the collapse because of under-regulating might be so.... but then again we have government to thank for this latest blunder. There where plenty of politicians calling for the further regulation who shall ramain nameless to avoid turning this into a useless partisian political thread. But let's just say at the time the chairman of the banking committe obviously wasn't interested.

 

And sure we can talk about bad buisinesses...... but guess what? Most of them are allowed to fail! This is the distinction you don't seem to accept? Please, tell me a government program that has been created that has done something useful? Maybe they might have done 1 or 2 things right.... but their track record is horrible with the crap they create.

 

At least the private sector has created millions upon MILLIONS of jobs. The government has not created 1 job! Why? Because it doesn't create anything!! It only takes. Don't think I'm saying government is not needed or useful, as that is not my point. But too much governement is not good, and WHENEVER they put their hands into somethig they screw it up.

 

Government has no incentive to perform well.... other thant he threat of not getting re-elected, and you can fix this by promising enough sheeple things they want.